127 is the answer

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

That’s laughable. The benefits of (free) international trade and the principle of comparative are the first things any student of Economics would come across.

Don’t conjecture any more. You’re posting bollocks.

Again, more insults, more theory, no facts. Put up some sound predictions so they can be judged. I'm happy to make some clear, quantifiable predictions on inflation, the £, unemployment, wages, GDP etc. I've done that already, you claimed it was bollocks, but didn't put any prediction up.

Academics often get accused of dealing in theory not reality. I have argued that was unfair, but perhaps I was wrong?

[Feedback]

Re: 127 is the answer

No he hasn't. And yes, you can. You can argue for a more balanced economy and trade deals that do not come with strings attached in terms of non economic matters. Very few free trade deals require the almost total absence of cross-border deregulation that the single market does.

what strings did access to the EU come with?

as for deregulation, you need to make your mind up. Once of the principle reasons given by the pro-Brexit movement was removing purported unaccountable bureaucrats from our decision making process, thus freeing us from the red-tape mad Brussels bureaucracy. Bendy bananas etc etc....

so if you don't mind, please confirm if the EU was no regulation, or just red tape?

NB the EU Commission was akin to the UK civil service, and is appointed by the EU Parliament much in the way the UK civil service is. Hardly unaccountable as its appointed is made by those we directly elect to represent us.

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

Can I thank various posters, including Feedback and AZ City for putting the stupid arguers for Brexit in their place far more succinctly than I ever could
I cannot get my head around anyone with 1 brain cell could still think it was a good economic idea. They must be in a state of denial.
The shit is hitting the fan. It will get a lot worse.

They haven't.

The economic benefits of being in or outside of the EU are a pretty complex debate. If you compare comparative advanced western countries such as France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy et al with those outside such as Norway, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, USA etc then it doesn't suggest EU membership benefits economies in any identifiable way - GDP growth is generally lower. Unemployment is generally higher etc.

[Feedback]

Re: 127 is the answer

how about food and animal welfare standards?

:thumbup:

#coughs in american#

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

how about food and animal welfare standards?

I don't anticipate any lowering of food standards. Animal welfare is anything will be enhanced if things like live animal exports are outlawed.

Not direcltly related, but in terms of land management, I think the proposed replacement to CAP is much better.

[Feedback]

Re: 127 is the answer

1 - No one advocates less trade with Germany.

but that is the unintended consequence of leaving the EU, as we have to follow WHO rules, adding more costs to trade with the Germans.

2- No one advocates trade with South Korea for trade with Germany. Quite the opposite; the EU trade deal actively prevents a bilateral deal with, for example, South Korea.

no it does not. The EU has a trade deal with South Korea. The EU negotiates on behalf of all member states. do you advocate Wales, N Ireland, Scotland and England all negotiate their own deals, or do you think we should negotiate as one political block getting a better deal overall?

3 - The NHS is actually receiving far more than £350m a week even accounting for inflation. It wasn't a direct transfer of EU contributions to the NHS, but the commitment was met. I agree, the UK doesn't need more prestige.

why the straight face when you say this?

4 - Currect me if I'm weong, but you are claiming inflation is caused by Brexit, when our inflation rate is lower than the eurozone, so your argument is somewhat weak.

I am saying that inflation was always going to happen because we import a large part of what we consume, which primarily came from the EU. Goods which previously did not have VAT or duty now do so.

[Feedback]

Re: 127 is the answer

They haven't.

The economic benefits of being in or outside of the EU are a pretty complex debate. If you compare comparative advanced western countries such as France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy et al with those outside such as Norway, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, USA etc then it doesn't suggest EU membership benefits economies in any identifiable way - GDP growth is generally lower. Unemployment is generally higher etc.

yet all of those highlighted are joining their own free trade blocs - why is that?

[Feedback]

Re: 127 is the answer

I don't anticipate any lowering of food standards. Animal welfare is anything will be enhanced if things like live animal exports are outlawed.

Not direcltly related, but in terms of land management, I think the proposed replacement to CAP is much better.

do you really believe the US has better animal welfare regulations that the EU?

[Rjk]

Re: 127 is the answer

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2021/06/uk-australian-trade-agreement-an-urgent-threat-worse-than-feared

[az city]

Re: 127 is the answer

No he hasn't. And yes, you can. You can argue for a more balanced economy and trade deals that do not come with strings attached in terms of non economic matters. Very few free trade deals require the almost total absence of cross-border deregulation that the single market does.

A “free trade deal” would entail no barriers whether tariff or non-tariff. You’re arguing for implicit or explicit non-tariff barriers which means it wouldn’t be free trade. It’s inconsistent to simultaneously argue for self-sufficiency and (real) free trade.

Here`s a conjecture for you. GB (not NI) will be worse off forever as a result of leaving the EU.

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

what strings did access to the EU come with?

as for deregulation, you need to make your mind up. Once of the principle reasons given by the pro-Brexit movement was removing purported unaccountable bureaucrats from our decision making process, thus freeing us from the red-tape mad Brussels bureaucracy. Bendy bananas etc etc....

so if you don't mind, please confirm if the EU was no regulation, or just red tape?

NB the EU Commission was akin to the UK civil service, and is appointed by the EU Parliament much in the way the UK civil service is. Hardly unaccountable as its appointed is made by those we directly elect to represent us.

Strings attached include rules on things such as procurement, immigration, state subsidies, primacy of national law, EU contributions of circa £10bn a year etc.

I don't argue that the EU burdened business with red tape, nor should there be a bonfire of regulations, but it required us to view our economy as one; from Bridgend to Bucharest, with zero protections within that - that was deregulation element.

In terms of the regulation element, it actively prevents access to the fastest growing global economies. So it's laissez-faire internallly and protectionist externally.

I think countries should be free to make their own decisions better, and I think that is what will happen going forward. In short, we sacrifice a slightly less good deal with the EU, for greater deals globally, whilst regaining controls over levers of our economy.

[Swiss Peter]

Re: 127 is the answer

yet all of those highlighted are joining their own free trade blocs - why is that?

Indeed - and the one you haven't highlighted is in the European single market.

[az city]

Re: 127 is the answer

They haven't.

The economic benefits of being in or outside of the EU are a pretty complex debate. If you compare comparative advanced western countries such as France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy et al with those outside such as Norway, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, USA etc then it doesn't suggest EU membership benefits economies in any identifiable way - GDP growth is generally lower. Unemployment is generally higher etc.

That’s simplistic, one-eyed bollocks.

Feedy owns you.

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

do you really believe the US has better animal welfare regulations that the EU?

Why are you talking about the US?

As with many aspects of EU membership, animal welfare sets a base level (which is good, especially for accession countries) but non EU countries often exceed it. Why wouldnt we?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/best-countries-for-animal-welfare.html

[JamesWales]

Re: 127 is the answer

A “free trade deal” would entail no barriers whether tariff or non-tariff. You’re arguing for implicit or explicit non-tariff barriers which means it wouldn’t be free trade. It’s inconsistent to simultaneously argue for self-sufficiency and (real) free trade.

Here`s a conjecture for you. GB (not NI) will be worse off forever as a result of leaving the EU.

I disagree with you. Now quantify your prediction, so we can assess it. I'm happy to.